An important question about magical item creation

[Jon_Dahl]

Short version:
Is the non-magical ring of protection +1 worth 1000 gp or is the process of creating a ring of protection +1 worth 1000 gp?

Long version:


Cost to Create

The next part of a notational entry is the cost in gp and XP to create the item, given following the word "Cost." This information appears only for items with components (material or XP), which make their market prices higher than their base prices. The cost to create includes the costs derived from the base cost plus the costs of the components.

Does that mean that if you create a ring +1 you first get a ring that costs 1000 gp? This cost can be something concrete, such as embedding diamond dust into the ring, which might even merge with the ring at molecular level, who knows, or the cost might entail something fantastic, like the yawn of a dragon (yawns are expensive!). From point forward, that ring is forever the material component for a ring +1 and be cannibalized as such if something like Mage's Disjunction hits the ring after it has been enchanted.

Or does it mean that the process itself is worth 1000 gp? E.g. You burn incense worth 1000 gp and that has nothing to with the ring. The ring itself will always be (almost) worthless.

[ExLibrisMortis]

A disjoined +1 ring is a ring, and as such, priced as a ring. It retains no special memory of its previous enchantment.

[Kaleph]

Basically the cost of the ring itself is negligible, and this is true for most Magic items. Let's assume you use as Basic physical component of your Magic item a plastic ring like the one from Breakfast at Tiffany's.

Then the wizard cleric uses various expensive processes and reagents, for a total value of 1000 gp. At the same time, spends a limited amount of XP, and repetedly casts shield of faith.

At the end of the procedure, which lasts I think 2 days, you get a Magic ring of protection +1, which has a market cost of 2000 gp.
The difference between the cost-to-create and the market cost compensates the time you spend, the XP you loose and the feat you have to choose as prerequisite.

[Jon_Dahl]

So the process costs 1000 gp, not the materials?

[Jon_Dahl]

A disjoined +1 ring is a ring, and as such, priced as a ring. It retains no special memory of its previous enchantment.

I am afraid that this was not the question.

[Deophaun]

Does that mean that if you create a ring +1 you first get a ring that costs 1000 gp?
Yes, but you are conflating cost with value.

Cost is simply the resources invested in the object. To make a +1 ring, you need to invest 1000 gp of resources. To make a disjoined +1 ring, you need to invest an addition 1530 gp on top of that (the value of the spellcasting service for a level 9 spell at CL 17). However, disjunction adds no value to the ring, and in fact destroys value. So, while it cost you 2530 gp to make the disjoined +1 ring, its value at the end is 0 gp. If you try to use it to pay the cost of something else, it will only contribute 0 gp.

[Kaleph]

So the process costs 1000 gp, not the materials?

Yes, please refer to the DMG/SRD. "Items without components do not have a "Cost" entry" (emphasis mine). The ring of protection hasn't a "Cost" entry, ergo it has no component costs. Also, no mention about the value of the ring is made elsewhere.

Accordingly, 1000 gp are the process cost, as for most Magic items.
An exception are, for example, the Golem Manuals, which have a cost entry, or the Pearl of the sirines, whereas in the description of the object it's mentioned that the Pearl itself "is worth at least 1,000 gp).

[Zombimode]

So the process costs 1000 gp, not the materials?

It's not defined. Magic Items Creation is highly abstracted. So much in fact that, if you actually care about, you have to considre it during world-building.

All you know is that creating a Ring of Protection +1 will "cost" the creator 1000 gp. What those costs actually entail is up to the GM to decide.


Personally, for Magic jewelry I rule that a good part of the costs come from the nonmagical Piece of jewelry itself.

[Kaleph]

Yes, but you are conflating cost with value.

Cost is simply the resources invested in the object. To make a +1 ring, you need to invest 1000 gp of resources. To make a disjoined +1 ring, you need to invest an addition 1530 gp on top of that (the value of the spellcasting service for a level 9 spell at CL 17). However, disjunction adds no value to the ring, and in fact destroys value. So, while it cost you 2530 gp to make the disjoined +1 ring, its value at the end is 0 gp. If you try to use it to pay the cost of something else, it will only contribute 0 gp.

I think you are equivocating the wording "non-magical ring of protection +1"; I'm quite sure it's meant as "the Basic object used to create the ring of protection +1, before it is enchanted".

[Kaleph]

Personally, for Magic jewelry I rule that a good part of the costs come from the nonmagical Piece of jewelry itself.

Which could create confusion in case the enchantment of the object is later on improved, since the object itself already exists with ist intrinsecal value. Anyhow I think you may simply get around this apparent bug by ruling that you mount additional precious stones to the original ring, whenever its deviation bonus is increased.

Actually not an ugly thing to imagine, flavorwise.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I am afraid that this was not the question.
It is equivalent.

A +1 ring costs 1000 gp to create. That is all we know about the components. They do not necessarily include a ring; that is up to the DM. All we know is that a +1 ring is created through the crafting process.

If your DM is nice enough to leave a nonmagical ring after the +1 ring has been disjoined, that ring will have whatever value your DM assigns, presumably less than 1000 gp.

[Florian]

@Jon Dahl:

There is no "Nonmagical Ring of Protection +1".

A lot of items have some specific or valuable items as part of their creation rules. Compare the formula for a RoP+1 with a Helm of Brilliance and you´ll find that the later includes cost for specific gems. The (sub)rule you quoted is about how to handle that extra cost.

Edit: There´s a lot of things that´re not really covered by the generic creation rules. If the existing (or custom) item would be: "This gold ring has one or more moonstones at it´s center, one moonstone for each magical "+", with the base ring costing 100gp and each moonstone 75 gp...". That´d be something, but as it stands, you could also use a coke can ring for it.

[Deophaun]

I think you are equivocating the wording "non-magical ring of protection +1"; I'm quite sure it's meant as "the Basic object used to create the ring of protection +1, before it is enchanted".
The basic object is 0 gp. You can spend however much more you want on a fancy ring to start, so let's say you go crazy and get a 2000 gp-ring studded with valuable gems like rubies or sapphires or emeralds (but not common diamonds: there is no cartel in D&D artificially controlling prices so they're relatively cheap), but that isn't factored into the cost of creating a ring of protection +1. You'd wind up paying 3000 gp for a +1 ring with a scrap value of 2000 gp; if it's ever disjoined you can still get 2000 gp for it.

[Kaleph]

The basic object is 0 gp. You can spend however much more you want on a fancy ring to start, so let's say you go crazy and get a 2000 gp-ring studded with valuable gems like rubies or sapphires or emeralds (but not common diamonds: there is no cartel in D&D artificially controlling prices so they're relatively cheap), but that isn't factored into the cost of creating a ring of protection +1. You'd wind up paying 3000 gp for a +1 ring with a scrap value of 2000 gp; if it's ever disjoined you can still get 2000 gp for it.

+1.

I think instead that disjunction was out of the scope of the original question.

[Jon_Dahl]

I think you are equivocating the wording "non-magical ring of protection +1"; I'm quite sure it's meant as "the Basic object used to create the ring of protection +1, before it is enchanted".

This is it. I just didn't bother to get so detailed with the explanation.

[Jon_Dahl]

Personally, for Magic jewelry I rule that a good part of the costs come from the nonmagical Piece of jewelry itself.

This is exactly what I do.

[Hunter Noventa]

The fact that with magical weapons, you have to pay for the masterwork weapon separately, seems to imply that when it comes to other magical items, the cost of the physical item is negligible.

A +1 longsword is 1000gp to enchant, the masterwork longsword you started with is 315gp.
A +1 ring of protection is 1000gp to enchant, the cost of the ring doesn't seem to matter.

But given some other wondrous items, such as a Helm of Brilliance being literally described as covered in precious gems, one has to assume that outside of weapons and armor, the cost of the item itself is a part of the cost of enchanting/creating a magical item. So a reasonable DM would give you a discount if you decided to enchant a mundane ring you found in a treasure haul rather than acquiring one through whatever means.

[Jon_Dahl]

I agree about the Helm of Brilliance. Re-enchanting a disjointed HoB should be less expensive than starting from scratch.

[Jon_Dahl]

I will explain the current situation. The PCs in my game found a used Helm of Opposite Alignment and they are wondering if re-enchanting it would be cheaper than getting any random helmet and enchanting.

[Kaleph]

I will explain the current situation. The PCs in my game found a used Helm of Opposite Alignment and they are wondering if re-enchanting it would be cheaper than getting any random helmet and enchanting.
In this specific case I'd rule: no.

[fire_insideout]

I am afraid that this was not the question.

But it was an answer. Perhaps you did not like it, or understand it, but it did give you an answer.


I will explain the current situation. The PCs in my game found a used Helm of Opposite Alignment and they are wondering if re-enchanting it would be cheaper than getting any random helmet and enchanting.

No.

[Jon_Dahl]

But it was an answer. Perhaps you did not like it, or understand it, but it did give you an answer.



Certainly, an answer is an answer. No question about it.

[Keltest]

In this specific case I'd rule: no.

Agreed. Although I'm not sure what they would want to enchant it for that they think it would be in a condition to have part of the costs already included in it, besides another helm of opposite alignment.

[Thurbane]

AFAIK, only magic weapons and armor have some sort pre req on the value of the items to be imbued with magical properties, and then only because it specifically requires masterwork.

What I find funny in 3E, though, is that all magical items of the same type have the same (fluff) descriptions.

"Hey, that magic ring I just found has a feather pattern all around the edge! I wonder what it does?" :smalltongue:

Similarly, all Rings of Regeneration must be made of white gold (this would force a gp value on the base materials - I have a plain white gold wedding ring, and it wasn't cheap!) etc. It's worse in the MIC - at least some items in the DMG don't have ridiculously specific descriptions, but pretty much everything in the MIC does.

Unless I'm missing something, nothing in the DMG/SRD calls the descriptions out as optional. :smallbiggrin:

[Deophaun]

Similarly, all Rings of Regeneration must be made of white gold (this would force a gp value on the base materials - I have a plain white gold wedding ring, and it wasn't cheap!) etc.
A white gold ring would actually be quite cheap from even a first-level adventurer's perspective. As this is before electroplating, you're looking at a gold-nickle alloy. The weight of a standard gold ring is roughly equal to 1/50th of a pound, which happens to be the same weight as a gold coin. Consider that a significant volume is going to be replace by a much cheaper metal, and you're looking at something priced in silver, not gold.

Unless I'm missing something, nothing in the DMG/SRD calls the descriptions out as optional. :smallbiggrin:
You are. Page 212 in the DMG covers appearance. The descriptions given are simply the default if you or your players are feeling unimaginative.

[Gildedragon]

Similarly, all Rings of Regeneration must be made of white gold (this would force a gp value on the base materials - I have a plain white gold wedding ring, and it wasn't cheap!) etc. It's worse in the MIC - at least some items in the DMG don't have ridiculously specific descriptions, but pretty much everything in the MIC does.
The ring might cost 8gp or less... considering the Aurum's gold rings cost that much...


Unless I'm missing something, nothing in the DMG/SRD calls the descriptions out as optional. :smallbiggrin:
I think the MIC has rules on that...

[Thurbane]

A white gold ring would actually be quite cheap from even a first-level adventurer's perspective. As this is before electroplating, you're looking at a gold-nickle alloy. The weight of a standard gold ring is roughly equal to 1/50th of a pound, which happens to be the same weight as a gold coin. Consider that a significant volume is going to be replace by a much cheaper metal, and you're looking at something priced in silver, not gold.

Even so, cost of a white gold ring > 0gp. However, you cover this under:


You are. Page 212 in the DMG covers appearance. The descriptions given[ are simply the default if you or your players are feeling unimaginative.

I figured I was. I read through the DMG section a couple of times and still managed to miss that bit. :smallredface: Although to be honest, it's not exactly overly clear: it presents the DM with three possible ways of handling the appearance of magic items.

[Deophaun]

Even so, cost of a white gold ring > 0gp. However, you cover this under:
True, but you have to ask what value does tacking a random single-digit number or fraction of a gold add to the game and is it worth the bookkeeping? Do we want to stop the game to haggle over a few coins when we're dealing with things worth tens of thousands of gold? My answer is no: it's negligible--0--don't bother asking.

[Thurbane]

True, but you have to ask what value does tacking a random single-digit number or fraction of a gold add to the game and is it worth the bookkeeping? Do we want to stop the game to haggle over a few coins when we're dealing with things worth tens of thousands of gold? My answer is no: it's negligible--0--don't bother asking.

Yes, in my games, 100% I wouldn't track to that kind of degree. I only brought it up because it directly relates to what the OP was asking.

[unseenmage]

AFAIK, only magic weapons and armor have some sort pre req on the value of the items to be imbued with magical properties, and then only because it specifically requires masterwork.

...
And Constructs. Though comparing the price of unmagiced swords and armor to the price of unmagiced Golems and Effigies gets real mind boggling real quick.


To the OP's query, the Arms and Equipment Guide has rules for pricing jewelery if you'd like to use them.

Had a character once who would Animate expensive clothes and jewelery and art objects just to make Repair Construct/Mending that much more "valuable" after the battle.